This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
> Unfortunately you didn't pick the best example... please do something > like issuing one UNSUPPORTED and then returning. > gdb_suppress_entire_file is evil. I knew it! :-) (there's something evil, and sure enough I pick it) UNSUPPORTED sounds better indeed. Thanks for the suggestion. I'd like to put the call to unsupported inside gdb_compile_ada in order to help having a certain consistency between all Ada testcases. So I'd like to suggest the attached patch instead. The code in null_record.exp can thus remain the same (simply abort if gdb_compile_ada returns a failure, nothing else to do since the unsupported has already been emitted). 2004-03-31 Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com> * lib/ada.exp (gdb_compile_ada): Emit UNSUPPORTED if we failed to build the application. Remove the message printed when in verbose mode, redundant with the UNSUPPORTED message above. (not sure if I used the proper terminology in the ChangeLog entry) Otherwise, the other approach would be to add the call to unsupported in null_record.exp itself. In that case, it might be nice to have the reason for the failure. For that, we would need to update the message returned by gdb_compile_ada to include that reason, and then include that reason in the UNSUPPORTED message. Would either approach be ok? -- Joel
Attachment:
ada.exp.diff
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |